Honoured to give the keynote speech at Amnesty’s conference on torture in London yesterday. Then dashed back to Edinburgh for a very romantic evening with Nadira – and Cameron!
Allowed HTML - you can use:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
Glenn
Thanks for that heads-up on Future Shock but I think I’ll give Mr A. Toffler’s book a miss.
@ Clark
23 Feb, 2015 – 4:09 pm
That made me laugh, Clark!
Most politicians are very ignorant of nuclear matters. Ronald Reagan was probably the worst. The guy who had his finger on the button didn’t really understand what nuclear weapons are. With regard to American Presidents, I think only Jimmy Carter actually had a background in nuclear engineering, which was handy when Three Mile Island happened.
Have you had your dinner yet..? Howabout some Japanese sea turtles with tumours…
https://twitter.com/cmk2wl/status/569120390057828352/photo/1
I wonder if this Twitter user will be arrested?
http://21stcenturywire.com/2015/02/22/gladio-strikes-explosion-at-peace-rally-in-kharkov-ukraine/
The event is identical to those which took place under Operation Gladio in Italy during the Cold War. Operation Gladio was a NATO stay-behind group that was seeking to prevent the spread of communism by supporting radical right-wing groups.
During the event of a mass protest in the name of communism, Gladio would foment some form of terrorist atrocity, such as a bombing, to break up the protest and discourage any further attempts at similar actions.
This is not a conspiracy theory, as Swiss historian Dr. Daniel Ganser has proven through extensive research in his book NATO’s Secret Armies.
With Ukraine’s military now failing on all fronts, along with a total lack of any meaningful support from the West, it is understandable why Kiev would be looking to break up any form of dissent that could further damage the credibility and legitimacy of its coup-government.
Therefore, this bombing being a Gladio-style false flag is not beyond the realms of possibility.
@Habbabkuk: Interesting points, and very arguable. But despite major cuts to defence over the years by both parties, neither seem to have suffered particularly for it. Even the major crime of sending “our boys” off on a pointless adventure, poorly equipped and without refurbishing/replacing equipment upon return, was not punished by the electorate.
Sapping morale in the armed forces by neglecting their welfare upon return (leaving it to charity, disgracefully, such as the “Help for Heros” appeals) also seems to have little effect.
Not sure the nuclear disarmament issue cost Labour that 1983 election, so much as a hard push by an invigorated Establishment to keep the far-right agenda of the Tories rolling along. You will note that Labour has not won an election since after WW-II, on any occasion when the press was enthusiastically supporting supporting the Tories.
It’s always difficult to pin down a single issue as causing a result (such as a particular election win) with so many items in play. But it ought to be clear that a properly informed populace would recognise that an independent nuclear deterrent has not been necessary for the majority of countries in Europe, that a country the size of ours is playing well above its weight trying to keep up with the “big boys” such as China, Russia, India, and the US, that it’s not an “independent deterrent” in any case, and so forth. A proper discussion would make all this far more clear.
It’s also odd that a country that keeps pleading “We’re poor! We’re poor!” when it comes to even the measly amount of third world aid we provide, and the little done for its own impoverished citizens, that is slashing social programmes and has roads literally falling apart, can afford such a monstrosity as a upgrade to Trident.
Leaping around a bit, but hopefully I’ve made the point that it’s certainly not a black & white case that the public support nuclear weapons, military adventurism and indeed NATO membership.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/lords-criticise-plan-to-give-holyrood-power-to-lower-voting-age.119049276
Those fat greedy useless unelected troughing b*stards at the House of Frauds, I mean Lords, tried to block, or at least hamper, future 16 and 17 year old’s in Scotland from voting.
The excuse given by the 900 or so blood sucking leeches, was if we give Scottish teenagers the vote, we’ll eventually have to give English 16 and 17 year old’s the vote.
What a shower of repressive self-serving scumbags.
Those no voting traitors, lets these lowlifes decide Scottish futures on certain matters.
Banks don’t have a need for deposits, and the demand for loans by households and firms is weak,” Niels Storm Stenbaek, chief economist at the Danish Bankers Association, said in a phone interview.
Wait … what?
Banks don’t need deposits? They’re not giving many loans? Isn’t that what banks do?
If they’re not collecting deposits and making loans, what are they doing?
In reality, big banks aren’t really acting like banks anymore. Big banks do very little traditional banking, since most of their business is from financial speculation. For example, we noted in 2010 that less than 10% of Bank of America’s assets come from traditional banking deposits.
The big banks are manipulating every market. They’re also taking over important aspects of the physical economy, including uranium mining, petroleum products, aluminum, ownership and operation of airports, toll roads, ports, and electricity.
And they are using these physical assets to massively manipulate commodities prices … scalping consumers of many billions of dollars each year (more here and more).
The evidence demonstrates that the big banks have essentially become huge criminal enterprises … waging warfare against the people of the world.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/big-fails-stopped-banks.html
…………………………..
This guy has a very good grasp of what a modern Bankster/Gangster is, and how they operate more and more outside the law.
Apparently Jack Straw is suspended from the Labour Party. Happy days.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/uk-jack-straw-suspended-labour-party-cash-access-scandal-1489033
Kind regards,
John
Repeated calls for a ban on the religious slaughter of animals have become an obsession of the animal rights lobby and are in danger of damaging wider community relations, religious groups have warned.
Jewish and Muslim leaders have accused animal welfare lobbyists of campaigning against the non-stun religious slaughter of animals to the exclusion of almost all other welfare issues.
They say the repeated calls for ban are not only unnecessary – with such practices accounting for a tiny percentage of animals killed – but also serve to increase hostility to Muslims and Jews among other sections of the population.
It does seem rather cruel and pointless to slaughter animals in this modern day, without first stunning them.
I have to agree with the British Veterinary Association, that stunning the animal should be put in place.
The Muslim and Jewish communities, in the UK, will make themselves even more isolated, using their barbaric slaughtering techniques.
Glenn
And you too make interesting points and I cannot reproach you for presenting a bit of a “mix” since it was I that started on that particular path by allowing myself to mention unilateral nuclear disarmament alongside the original theme of UK membership of NATO.
I think that one should be prepared to admit that the questions of nuclear power status, military adventurism (as you would call it) and membership of NATO, while being linked to some extent, are issues that could be decided on separately and that the outcome of referenda held on all three of those questions might be very different.
Yes, any referendum on NATO membership should be preceded by an informed debate. One would have to be a Macky, Mr Goss or Republicofscotland to gainsay that.
I also agree that the care of former servicemen appears to need to be improved considerably. In that connection, I find that identifying the target figure for defence expenditure as a mere 2% of GDP is grotesque and even treasonous. The first duty of the state is to defend its citizens against foreign aggression – all other state obligations must follow from that, not precede it. Hence defence expenditure (whether or not the UK renews its nuclear deterrent) should be fixed at at least double the present target, ie at 4%.
All for now on this, except to suggest that RoS and like-minded chaps should join in here rather than cocking their legs against sundry lampposts and fences.
Despite my reservations to the contrary I am disappointed to see that if this video is genuine, and it looks genuine, the separatists are intent on re-taking Mariupol. I hoped they would not do this even though I am sure the residents would rather have them there than an alien Kiev force. I hope whatever happens it happens peacefully and the western-backed forces there cede. There has already been too much bloodshed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2_cUnVwhdU&feature=youtu.be
Doug Scorgie Milord Stirrup’s register of interests.
Register of Interests
7: Overseas visits
Visit to Israel, 26-30 January 2014, to speak at security conference and participate in panel discussions; transport and accommodation provided by Institute for National Security Studies, Tel Aviv University
~~
Also, he and Dannatt did not break the code!
’13 June 2013
Lords Dannatt and Stirrup cleared of misconduct over lobbying claims
Lord Stirrup and Lord Dannatt both denied any wrongdoing MoD to probe lobbying claim
Inquiry into Legion lobby claim
Military lobbying claims probed
Former high ranking military officers Lord Dannatt and Lord Stirrup have been cleared of misconduct over lobbying allegations.
The pair were among several retired military leaders secretly filmed by the Sunday Times.
They were accused of using their influence within the MoD to lobby on behalf of commercial interests.
But the Lords Commissioner on Standards said the two men did not break the code of conduct for House of Lords members.’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22887651
It was ever thus.
‘MoD staff and thousands of military officers join arms firms
Guardian research in the aftermath of the ‘jobs for generals’ scandal shows extent of links between MoD and private sector ‘
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/oct/15/mod-military-arms-firms
Milord Dannatt is presently ensconced as Constable at the Tower of London in a grace and favour pad. Recently the scene of the bloody red poppies.
Doug You had of course already posted the link to Stirrup’s visit to Israhell.
Clark 4/09pm Yes very good. 🙂
It was interesting that both Straw and Rifkind were all over the visual media today to state their cases. It’s called ‘open access’. As I said they are revolting.
Following my last comment it looks like both sides are not interested in a ceasefire. Loud explosions in the centre of Donetsk.
https://twitter.com/search?src=typd&q=%23Donetsk
The report of explosions in Donetsk are fireworks. Sorry. I was just posting what was reported at the time.
23 February 2015
Andy Coulson faces perjury trial
Former Downing Street communications director Andy Coulson is to stand trial in Scotland on a charge of perjury.
The trial is in connection with the trial of Tommy and Gail Sheridan in December 2010 at the High Court in Glasgow.
Mr Coulson, a former editor of the News of the World, attended a day-long pre-evidential hearing at the High Court in Edinburgh.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-31594152
Employing him was not one of Smoothface’s better decisions. Perhaps Rebekah was influential in it.
Mary and RobG, I’m glad you liked that. The centrifugal MP enrichment procedure is more commonly known as “spin”, of course.
The first duty of the state is to defend its citizens against foreign aggression – all other state obligations must follow from that, not precede it. Hence defence expenditure (whether or not the UK renews its nuclear deterrent) should be fixed at at least double the present target, ie at 4%
————————————–
An interesting insight to the establishment mouthpiece, who thinks defence supersedes all else. why would that be, when other countries don’t feel the need to spend outrageous amounts on defence.
No you’re very wrong on this matter, only a warring state needs to defend itself vigorously, is the UK a warring state in your opinion?
The number one priority for a government is not its warring capability, but to care for its citizens, the measure of a society isn’t capacity for defence but its capacity for providing for its people, whether it be food or education or medicine.
Right about now you’re screaming at your screen what a naive b*stard, how can you develop any of those things, if you can’t defend yourselves, and to a certain degree you’d have a point.
But then you could look at the neutral countries during WWII, and say it is possible war isn’t always inevitable.
And in this day and age man power, with regards to defence may not make a huge difference, due the caliber of modern weapons on offer.
Then of course their is the alternative strength in numbers an alliance with several countries, this route only leads to an arms race.
Eventually you must look at the causes of war, and who’s implementing it. These are the real troubles or ailments of society, why we feel the need to create wars, not how much we can spend on weapons, to appear mighty and therefore dangerous.
Re my last comment, now here’s a warring state, who’ll never know peace.
_________________________________
hree weeks ago, Israeli artillery “retaliated” for a cross-border Hezbollah attack, and ended up killing a Spanish soldier with the UN observer force, UNIFIL. The UNIFIL now believes Israel deliberately targeted them.
UNIFIL officials say Israel never even attempted to fire at the Hezbollah forces that were attacking them, and instead focused their artillery directly at the UNIFIL observation tower, with strikes getting closer until they finally hit it, killing soldier Francisco Javier Soria Toledo.
The UN believes that attack was meant to punish the peacekeepers for not stopping Hezbollah from conducting the attack, though the lightly armed UNIFIL force is primarily there to document cross-border incidents, not prevent them.
http://news.antiwar.com/2015/02/20/un-israel-deliberately-targeted-peacekeeper-in-lebanon/
The latest beli casi, is of course “terrorism”
The war on terror was a brilliant propaganda idea. It created a state of exception to democratic order throughout the West, one that facilitated a craven and unquestioned transition from constitutional democracies to control states.
In the US, the Patriot Act inaugurated this control state, which politologists like to call a security state to avoid calling it a police state, in which every citizen is regarded as a potential terrorist. The function of this type of state is not to promote order but to manage the disorder that it produces.
On the world stage, terrorism is used as the instrument for creating the disorder that the world’s policeman—the United States—and its allies are called to manage.
The USA government and its corporatocracy,no longer care, what its citizens think about its stance, on war, war is profitable, and that’s all that matters.
The United States is set to arm Israel with more fighter jets in a three-billion-dollar agreement signed between Washington and Tel Aviv over the weekend.
The deal includes 14 F-35 stealth fighters made by the US company, Lockheed Martin, at a cost of about $110 million each, Israeli officials announced on Sunday.
Other technological and training elements were also included in the military package.
Israel is expected to receive the fighter jets by the end of next year.
The United States provides Israel with some $8.5 million in military aid per day, adding up to over $3 billion annually.
In November, the Department of Defence announced plans to arm Israel with 3,000 smart bombs as part of Washington’s military aid to Tel Aviv.
In December, American lawmakers passed a bill to deepen Washington’s bonds with Tel Aviv, making Israel a major strategic partner of the United States.
The US House of Representatives approved the US-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014, which reflects the sense of Congress that Israel is a major strategic partner of the United States, and declares Washington’s unwavering support for Israel.
The US military aid to Israel has prompted several demonstrations across the country against such deals.
American protesters argue that the US taxpayer money is used for more Israeli aggression against Palestinians.
As I said in a previous comment the US no longer cares what its citizens think, billions of tax dollars going to Israel, whilst Obamavilles spread across the US.
“The first duty of the state is to defend its citizens against foreign aggression – all other state obligations must follow from that, not precede it. Hence defence expenditure (whether or not the UK renews its nuclear deterrent) should be fixed at at least double the present target, ie at 4%
————————————–
An interesting insight to the establishment mouthpiece, who thinks defence supersedes all else.”
_________________
If you read what I write carefully, SuperLiar (aka Republicofscotland);$, you’ll see that I didn’t say defence supersedes all else. I said that it should precede all else. The all else is worthless if it does not exist in a state secure as far as possible from outside threat.
Anyone who denies the truth of that is a naive fool.
Bellacaledonia’s take.
Silly Old Me
After being stung in the latest Cash for Access ‘scandal’ at Westminster that’s been making all the headlines, Jack Straw has said he had fallen into a “very skilful trap” while Sir Malcolm Rifkind said his comments had been “silly”.
Silly is when you pour coffee down your front, run out of the petrol on the M74 or forget your packed lunch. Silly isn’t scrabbling like a political whore for £5k or selling your democracy to the highest bidder. It’s venal, deceitful or corrupt, not silly.
The veteran Tory grandee is said to have claimed that he could arrange “useful access” to every British ambassador in the world, while Labour’s former foreign secretary Jack Straw boasted of operating “under the radar” to use his influence to change European Union rules.
Almost worst than the incident is the blank denial that both people have made when caught.
/..
http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2015/02/23/silly-old-me/
If you read what I write carefully, SuperLiar (aka Republicofscotland);$, you’ll see that I didn’t say defence supersedes all else. I said that it should precede all else. The all else is worthless if it does not exist in a state secure as far as possible from outside threat.
Anyone who denies the truth of that is a naive fool.
_________________________________
I addressed your point of naivety, did you even read my comment? and precede, supersede, its virtually the same, have you been at the sherry again?
Or are your glasses broken, you failed to answer my question, about the the UK being a warring state, a z-minus for you, go and sit in the corner.
Habbabkuk, 6:02 pm
The UK has one of the highest military expenditures of any country in the world, rating between sixth and fourth, according to three different organisations’ figures. Only the three superpowers are consistently rated above the UK, which spends much more than the whole of Canada and Australia combined despite it’s comparatively tiny surface area and border:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
Habbabkuk, why on Earth would you want military expenditure increased? What possible threat could you be anticipating? Or do you advocate more UK attacks upon other countries, despite the disastrous results and increased extremism resulting from the attacks upon Iraq and Libya?
The UK only spends as much as it does because it attacks other countries. If Westminster confined their ambitions to true defence the military budget could be slashed while paying ex-services personnel proper pensions and compensation for injuries suffered during their service.
” precede, supersede, its virtually the same”
_________________
Would some kind soul like to explain the difference between these two verbs to Republicofscotland (aka SuperLiar)?
Thanks.
Clark
“The UK has one of the highest military expenditures of any country in the world, rating between sixth and fourth, according to three different organisations’ figures.”
______________
Even if that is true, what does it prove? That the UK spends too much on defence? It could also mean that other countries spend too little.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“..the UK, which spends much more than the whole of Canada and Australia combined despite it’s comparatively tiny surface area and border”
___________________
Leading on from my first point, the criterion you give is again meaningless per se. You could argue that wider spaces and a wider distribution of the population makes defence easier and therefore cheaper – and vice versa. But anyway, another way of looking at it would be to say that the UK’s population is greater than that of Canada and Australia combined and that would be equally meaningless in deciding the correct level of defence expenditure.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“What possible threat could you be anticipating?”
___________________
The essence of defence is to be prepared for various scenarios – including the worst one. In the 1920s and 1930s British defence chiefs worked in the “ten year rule” – ie, they looked ahead ten years to see if war was anticipated within that horizon and based defence (and rearmament) plans on that. This was a rolling outlook – and was still being used until the mid-1930s to predict no UK military engagement until 1945…..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Or do you advocate more UK attacks upon other countries, despite the disastrous results and increased extremism resulting from the attacks upon Iraq and Libya?”
__________________
One would hope not, but only a fool would rule out the need for such intervention entirely.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=
“If Westminster confined their ambitions to true defence the military budget could be slashed”
_______________________
What do you consider “true defence” to consist in; how would you separate defence from attack in terms of military hardware, troop numbers etc given that you cannot anticipate the form, nature and duration of any defensive or offensive war at this moment.
********************
The bottom line is that 2% is a shamefully – and dangerously – low percentage of GDP to be spending on the essential function of ensuring to the extent possible the safety and security of the country. It should be at least doubled.
That’s quite an interesting list. Saudi Arabia and the US stand out as the utter nutters. Saudi Arabia spends over twice as high a proportion of GDP than any other country. The US spends nearly enough to take on the rest of the world combined:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures#List
The list of countries by Global Militarization Index is quite interesting too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Global_Militarization_Index
“What possible threat could you be anticipating?”
Argentina might invade the Falkland Islands.
Habbabkuk:
This is silly. The only use of a military is to oppose another military. If other countries were spending “too little”, there’s no need for a greater UK military with which to oppose them. All such considerations are necessarily relative.
True defence is defence of the UK, in the sense of making the UK so expensive to take that it would not be worth the attempt.
This is unbelievably silly. If every country took this as their policy, the ensuing arms race would necessarily consume all human effort and production. Do the maths; it’s obvious.
Fred, I think you’ve spotted it. Habbabkuk wants to ensure that his tax havens can be defended.